Re: [tied Ariovistus again

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/21/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> > > The Senate called the Aedui 'brothers' of the Roman people
> > > http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 33
> > > no later than 60 BCE
> > > http://en.wikisourc e.org/wiki/Letters_ to_ Atticus/1.19
> > >
> > > GK: As mentioned, this is the letter indicating that
> > > Magetobriga was fought in 61 BCE. Here, BTW, is a description of
> > > it in Caesar's own words:
>
> > > "If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted
> > > any, these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when
> > > the Gauls had been tired out by the long duration of the war,
> > > Ariovistus, after he had many months kept himself in his camp
> > > and in the marshes, and had given no opportunity for an
> > > engagement, fell suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of
> > > a battle and scattered in all directions, and was victorious
> > > more through stratagem and cunning than valor." (DBG, 1:40)
>
> > This is the opposite of what Ariovistus says.
>
> ****GK: Did Ariovistus write his own "De Bello Gallico"?(:=))****

This is what Caesar says Ariovistus said, probably copied from
secretarial notes. Caesar was a sociopath - he was always right, also
when he was wrong. He didn't see it as a problem to leave other
people's evidence in his story which contradicted what he claimed - he
was right anyway. Dio Cassius thought it was a problem.

> > If Caesar knows this to be so, why doesn't he say so straight
> > out, instead of reasoning about what might possibly be
> > discovered, if one made inquiries? And why 'the Gauls'? He was
> > already at war with the Aedui; attacking his employer, the
> > Arverni or the Sequani, would have been scandalous. Why then say
> > he fought 'the Gauls' (and that's what Ariovistus and Diviaticus
> > said too)?
>
> ****GK: A general term does not always include everybody. It's just
> a speech mode to be interpreted in context. This is elementary.
> There are millions of possible examples. E.g. Mark 1:5:
> "egrediebatur ad illum omnis Iudaeae regio et Hierosolymitae
> universi et baptizabantur ab illo in Iordane flumine" Does this
> mean that all Judaeans and all Jerusalemites were being baptized by
> John? Of course not. Ditto Caesar's "the Gauls" vs. Ariovistus.****

Invalid. The question here is whether the text is truthful, ie.
whether the all did it as the text says. In DBG the question is
whether the text uses a subsuming category to denote a group which
makes up only part of that subsuming category, eg. supposing one said:
'In WW2, the USA was at war with Europe', instead of 'In WW2, the USA
was at war with Germany'.

Even if that logical error had been common, we have here three people:
Caesar, Divitiacus and Ariovistus who use the term 'the Gauls' of A.
opponents in the battle of Magetobriga, and they don't use the
generalizing term 'the Gauls' of single tribes in other contexts.

> > Caesar in his consulship 59 BCE
> > http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar03.html
> > called Ariovistus 'king and friend'.
> > http://classics.mit.edu/Caesar/gallic.1.1.html 35
> > That means Ariovistus can not have been at war with the Aedui in
> > 59
> >
> > GK: Correct.
> >
> > BCE. He must have been elsewhere before that in the 14 years he
> > had been without a roof (ie in 72 - 59 BCE).
> >
> > GK: Before the invasion which led to Magetobriga in 61 BCE,
> > there had been other conflicts, with Ariovistus fighting on the
> > side of the Sequani. Cf. DBG, 1:31: "Divitiacus the Aeduan
> > spoke... ...'there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that
> > the Aedui stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the
> > other. After these had been violently struggling with one another
> > for the superiority for many years, it came to pass that the
> > Germans were called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani.
> > That about 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first
> > crossed the Rhine [This "first crossing" is the arrival of
> > Ariovistus GK]. but after that these wild and savage men had
> > become enamored of the lands and the refinement and the abundance
> > of the Gauls, more were brought over [It would have taken some
> > time for this development. Meanwhile Ariovistus and his 15,000
> > took part in the never ending skirmishes of the never ending
> > struggle GK]... ... with these the Aedui and their dependents had
> > repeatedly struggled in arms [at first with Ariovistus' 15,000,
> > and then with him and the imports, as they trickled in. Group
> > after group, like the Harudes. It took years. "Repeatedly" . GK]
>
> I think Diviaticus' estimate of 120.000 of the total number of
> Germani in Gaul is the same as the original 15.000 plus the 24.000
> Harudes. This because these 24.000 are the reason A. offers for his
> claim of 1/3 of the land of the Aedui. If 1/3 of the Aedui land is
> enough to support 24.000 people, the other 1/3 they already had
> would be for the 15.000 original settlers.
>
> ****GK: Have fun rewriting DBG in your alternative universe.****

The relation 'is an alternative of' is symmetric.
Do you have any concrete objections?

> > On the other hand, Caesar states
> > http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 1
> > that the Helvetii were constantly at war with the Germani (ie. in
> > the time up to the Gallic War, before 58 BCE),
> > ('when they either repel them from their own territories, or
> > themselves wage war on their frontiers', Latin 'in eorum finibus')
>
> 'Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt,
> quod fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis
> finibus eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt.'
> "for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in
> valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles,
> when they either repel them from their own territories, or
> themselves wage war on their frontiers"
> or, better (the translator of the above has made an interpretation
> of the word 'fines' "territory; frontier" based on the present
> borders,
> 'territories' for the Helvetii/Swiss,
> 'frontiers' for the Germanii/Germans)
> "for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in
> valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles,
> when they either deny them access to their own territories, or
> themselves wage war in their territories"
>
> > from whom they were separated by the Rhine
> > http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 2
> > In other words the Helvetii were at war with someone, and losing,
> > in Southern Germany, an area where they had earlier prevailed.
> > http://www.fordham. edu/halsall/ basis/tacitus- germanygord. html
> > Part II, section 3
> >
> > GK: What Caesar said is this: "these [i.e. the Germani of
> > Ariovistus GK] were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent
> > encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs
> > [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have
> > been a match for our army." (DBG 1:40) Caesar was attempting to
> > boost his troups' morale before the battle with Ariovistus and
> > his Germanic auxiliaries. Had the Helvetii been fleeing refugees,
> > this would hardly have done the trick.
>
> Caesar is of course sticking to his story.
> 'When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and
> summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely
> reprimanded them, "particularly, for supposing that it belonged to
> them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were
> marching, or with what object...."'
> Why is convening the officers instead of the addressing the common
> soldier, and why is he admonishing them that they have no business
> questioning his orders and in general his version of the situation?
> Because the common soldier knows what's going on.
>
> ****GK: And Torsten knows even better. No foolin' Torsten, no
> sirreee...(:=))****

Any concrete objections?

> > But of course, the Helvetii were not fleeing refugees.
> Are too.
>
> > Cf. also the point made in Cicero's latter to
> > Atticus of 15 March 60: "Atque in re publica nunc quidem maxime
> > Gallici belli versatur metus. Nam Haedui fratres nostri pugnam
> > nuper malam pugnarunt, et Helvetii sine dubio sunt in armis
> > excursionesque in provinciam faciunt."
> > http://www.thelatin library.com/ cicero/att1. shtml
>
> Yup. Helvetii trying to flee being stopped. Romans didn't want
> roaming and ravaging refugees in their province.
>
> ****GK: Refugees in their own country. Insuperable Torsten logic.

(:=)))****

The Helvetii would be refugees in Roman Gallia Narbonnensis.
That was old Allobroges territory.

> > I suggest that Ariovistus was active in Southern Germany at the
> > time, colonizing it(?).
> >
> >
> > GK: The known facts have him colonizing Sequaniland.
>
> Hm. Now George has become the known facts.
>
> ****GK: We don't all live in alternative universes.****

See above.

It used to take much longer before you descended to commenting on my
sanity instead of the matter. We all get older.


Torsten